# Why did the OJ Simpson murder trial prosecution focus on DNA? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 19, 2014, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-oj-simpson-murder-trial-prosecution-focus-on-dna/691138 "2014-06-19T10:04:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-oj-simpson-murder-trial-prosecution-focus-on-dna/691138/21 "2014-06-19T16:36:39Z")
> [@Mr.Nylock](#): > > I just don’t see how one arrives at the terms “play acting” and “slinging mud”. Those terms suggest that these facts are immaterial to the case. If there is something I’m missing (and there very well may be) I would be interested to know. Fuhrman was dating a woman and they were trying to put together an idea for a TV series. In order to work out the scripts, Fuhrman put himself into the persona of a racist cop. It was in that context that he said “n\*gger”. ([Cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fuhrman).) Further, the blood evidence and thus the DNA was discovered at 8:00 in the morning. Blood samples were not drawn from OJ until (IIRC) 2:30 that afternoon. > [@Fishtar](#): > > OJ’s blood on the gate contained the exact same amount of EDTA that is found in lavender top test tubes. > [@](#): > > Although EDTA is used to preserve blood in laboratory testing, it is also found naturally in human blood, as well as in chemicals such as laundry detergent and paint. The prosecution pointed out that this easily explained its presence on a painted gate and an article of apparel. [Cite.](http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/hairs_14.html) > [@](#): > > The most important evidence of all, OJ’s blood on the driveway, was clearly tampered with. This according to testimony of the tech who originally processed it. [Untrue.](http://www.bxscience.edu/publications/forensics/articles/dna/r-dna02.htm) > [@](#): > > A large quantity blood was found at the Bundy estate and at the Rockingham estate. A trail of blood was found at the actual crime scene as well as in Simpson’s white Bronco and at his house. The walk and the rear gate at the Bundy estate had blood from Simpson. This was determined by using genetic fingerprinting. The blood of Nicole Brown Simpson matched the bloodstains that were collected at the crime scene (Nicole’s house) and at O.J.'s house. > > ``` > Blood with DNA that matched Simpson's was found at Brown's condo. Blood spots in Simpson's car contained DNA matching Brown's, Goldman's and Simpson's. At Nicole's house, the rear gate and the walkway contained Simpson's blood. The shoe print of Goldman's shoe and Nicole's fingernails had her blood on it. At O.J.'s place, the foyer and driveway contained the same blood. The socks found in Simpson's bedroom had his and Nicole's blood on it. The glove found on his property contained the blood of all three of them. In Simpson's Ford Bronco, the instrument panel and inside door contained O.J.'s blood. The steering wheel had the blood of O.J. Simpson and Nicole on it. The carpet on the driver's side contained Nicole's blood, and the console had the blood of O.J., Nicole and Ron Goldman. > > There were five blood drops at Brown's home containing DNA that matched Simpson's, four were located on the walkway and the fifth blood drop was found in the driveway. The blood drops on the walkway began near the murder victims, to the left of the bloody footprints leading away from Brown's home and continued past the rear gate and into the driveway. The location of the blood drops indicated that they were shed by the killer, who was bleeding drops to the ground as he left the scene of the crime, heading from the walkway to the rear gate and then the driveway. > > ``` Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![MikeF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MikeF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeF)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-oj-simpson-murder-trial-prosecution-focus-on-dna/691138/22 "2014-06-19T16:37:13Z")
To the OP’s question - because DNA evidence, when collected and analyzed properly, is pretty conclusive as to who the donor was. Put your suspect at the scene and add other evidence (and there was a TON in this case) and you ought to have a slam dunk. Bugliosi pretty much blasted everyone but especially the prosecutors. I really enjoyed his book. As for black women not liking white women because they steal their men. Uh uh. I’d venture to say that that is not a common experience in the black community. However, having white LA cops violate the rights of black men (the husbands and sons of those jurors) WAS a common experience. They wouldn’t find it hard to believe that it happened again. Furman - Fifth to one question, fifth to all. BTW, there was never any evidence presented that he planted the glove. I really don’t understand why the cops only interviewed OJ for 30 minutes when they knew he was their prime suspect and he had no lawyers present. It was an interrogators dream. They should have spent hours grilling him until he either confessed, gave details which could be later proven to be lies or asked for a lawyer. I’m sure those guys investigated far more murders than I ever did but thirty minutes in you should just be getting past the introductions. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Nylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@Mr.Nylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Nylock)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-oj-simpson-murder-trial-prosecution-focus-on-dna/691138/23 "2014-06-19T16:46:47Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Fuhrman was dating a woman and they were trying to put together an idea for a TV series. In order to work out the scripts, Fuhrman put himself into the persona of a racist cop. It was in that context that he said “n\*gger”. ([Cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fuhrman).) > > Regards, > Shodan Thank you for the clarification:). You know, after watching the Bronco chase, I pretty much tuned out all the OJ stuff, I only started actually looking at anything about the case when it started coming up in SDMB threads. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-oj-simpson-murder-trial-prosecution-focus-on-dna/691138/24 "2014-06-19T17:02:26Z")
> [@Fishtar](#): > > Brilliant. First trick him into obvious perjury…and then ask him if he planted evidence. Dude decided that more perjury was not really in his best interest, and took the 5th. No, the defense played the tape, then repeated the question about having said the word “n\*gger.” That’s when Fuhrman took the fifth. Once he took the fifth, he could not answer ANY questions, and the jury was instructed to disregard any previous testimony he had given. As someone else said, “fifth to one, fifth to all.” ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-oj-simpson-murder-trial-prosecution-focus-on-dna/691138/25 "2014-06-19T17:22:30Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > Once you plead the fifth, you have to plead the fifth on every question. You cannot answer some questions, and plead the fifth on others. That’s why the defense worked so hard to get Fuhrman eliminated as a witness. I don’t know where you got this idea, but it’s incorrect. A witness other than a criminal defendant may refuse to answer (on Fifth Amendment grounds) _only_ questions whose answers may implicate her. Only a criminal defendant may refuse to testify _entirely_ on Fifth Amendment grounds. Now, if a non-defendant witness testifies as to some matters but pleads the Fifth only in response to questions which harm the state’s case (or his party’s case in civil matters) then the court _might_ strike all the testimony on Confrontation Clause grounds (the Fifth Amendment cannot be used “as both a sword and shield”.) ETA: that actually seems to be what you are getting at, based on your last post, but it is not an absolute rule as you seem to be implying. ---
**Author:** ![Fishtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ed655f/32.png) [@Fishtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fishtar)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-oj-simpson-murder-trial-prosecution-focus-on-dna/691138/26 "2014-06-19T17:25:04Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Untrue. > Regards, > Shodan If untrue, please let me know specifically how. The blood on the gate was found days later after the detectives had been given a vial of OJs blood. And the EDTA level of the blood on the gate matched that of the level in the vial. The tech who processed the drops on the driveway testified that she resuspended them, transferred them onto DNA paper, carefully dried them for hours, then placed them into evidence bags and initialed each one. Yet the samples that were actually tested came in bags with no initials, and were smeared with blood. Meaning the samples had been stuffed in while still wet. Detectives had full access to the lab. Also the detectives were given vials of both victim’s blood (why?) If my facts are indeed correct (and I think they are, although it has been awhile), that takes care of all OJ blood found at the scene. Hard for a jury to ignore. Also, Fuhrman plead the Fifth specifically in regards to planting evidence… ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-oj-simpson-murder-trial-prosecution-focus-on-dna/691138/27 "2014-06-19T17:30:47Z")
Was that in regard to _ever_ planting evidence anytime any case, or planting in this case? ---
**Author:** ![Fishtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ed655f/32.png) [@Fishtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fishtar)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-oj-simpson-murder-trial-prosecution-focus-on-dna/691138/28 "2014-06-19T17:44:01Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Was that in regard to _ever_ planting evidence anytime any case, or planting in this case? Uleman - “Did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?” Fuhrman - “I wish to assert my 5th Amendment privilege.” > **[Fuhrman Invokes 5th Amendment, Refuses to Testify : Simpson case:...](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-09-07-mn-43219-story.html)** > > A somber, stony-faced Detective Mark Fuhrman asserted his 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination three times Wednesday, refusing to answer questions posed by defense lawyers who charge that he framed O.J. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-oj-simpson-murder-trial-prosecution-focus-on-dna/691138/29 "2014-06-19T17:45:43Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I don’t know where you got this idea, but it’s incorrect. A witness other than a criminal defendant may refuse to answer (on Fifth Amendment grounds) _only_ questions whose answers may implicate her. Only a criminal defendant may refuse to testify _entirely_ on Fifth Amendment grounds. > > Now, if a non-defendant witness testifies as to some matters but pleads the Fifth only in response to questions which harm the state’s case (or his party’s case in civil matters) then the court _might_ strike all the testimony on Confrontation Clause grounds (the Fifth Amendment cannot be used “as both a sword and shield”.) > > ETA: that actually seems to be what you are getting at, based on your last post, but it is not an absolute rule as you seem to be implying. I’m pretty sure that Fuhrman took the fifth on all questions put to him. I read his book, and IIRC, he said that was what happened. And maybe the judge did strike his testimony. I didn’t watch the whole trial, but I had a bad sinus infection one week, and only basic cable, and it happened to be the week all the Fuhrman fury was going on. But even if you didn’t watch the trial, you couldn’t help hearing about it everywhere if you were an adult in the US at the time. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-oj-simpson-murder-trial-prosecution-focus-on-dna/691138/30 "2014-06-19T17:52:15Z")
From the article: > [@](#): > > On the advice of his lawyer, Darryl Mounger, Fuhrman said that he would take the 5th Amendment on any question regarding the Simpson case. > > Fuhrman then strode briskly to the door and left the courthouse through a private hallway, flanked by his attorney and three men who appeared to be bodyguards. Aware that his tape-recorded comments about beating black suspects and manufacturing evidence have inflamed many in Los Angeles, Fuhrman took extraordinary security precautions from the moment he arrived at the courthouse in a tan van with blacked-out windows. > > Defense attorneys trumpeted Fuhrman’s refusal to testify as a major victory. Prosecutors have long argued that Fuhrman had no chance to plant the bloody glove at Simpson’s estate and no reason to risk such a dangerous gambit. But in a hasty news conference Wednesday, Simpson’s lawyers insisted they have proved that Fuhrman had both the opportunity and the motive. > > “You saw a lead detective . . . refuse to answer questions on the grounds that the answers he made there would tend to incriminate him,” defense lawyer Robert Shapiro told a crowd gathered on the first floor of the courthouse. “It’s unprecedented in the history of jurisprudence.” > > Legal analysts said Fuhrman was compelled to take the 5th Amendment, even in response to the provocative question about planting evidence, because breaking his silence would leave him vulnerable to wide-ranging questions. The 5th Amendment offers blanket protection against self-incrimination; witnesses cannot invoke its shield on some questions and then answer others, UCLA professor Peter Arenella said. So the fifth does not mean that he planted evidence. he could have. He also might not have. Just as in court, refusing to answer cannot be assumed to be a “yes”. The trial simply showed that the sloppy and lax and possibly criminal methods used to build cases probably framed quite a few suspects who could not afford millions of dollars for good lawyers and investigators. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-oj-simpson-murder-trial-prosecution-focus-on-dna/691138/31 "2014-06-19T17:59:40Z")
> [@Fishtar](#): > > If untrue, please let me know specifically how. Read the quote I cited. > [@](#): > > The blood on the gate was found days later after the detectives had been given a vial of OJs blood. And the EDTA level of the blood on the gate matched that of the level in the vial. As mentioned, EDTA is a common component of laundry detergent and of paint, and is also found in human blood naturally. It is therefore not significant that it should be detectable in blood taken from garments and painted surfaces. > [@](#): > > If my facts are indeed correct (and I think they are, although it has been awhile), that takes care of all OJ blood found at the scene. No, it actually doesn’t, unless you are able to explain how blood evidence can be planted before it is collected. As well as how to account for Nicole and Goldman’s (and OJ’s) blood being in OJ’s car. As well as how to account for the fact that OJ makes no mention of being framed in the note he wrote before the Bronco chase. As well as for the fact that OJ lied about owning Bruno Magli shoes. Etc. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-oj-simpson-murder-trial-prosecution-focus-on-dna/691138/32 "2014-06-19T17:59:58Z")
He denies planting evidence in his book, where he admits to using the n-word, but places it in context. I tend to think that whether Fuhrman planted evidence or not, Simpson is still guilty. It’s possible to frame a guilty person. But like I said, I also was absolutely convinced Gary Condit killed Chandra Levy, so nothing will shock me at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-oj-simpson-murder-trial-prosecution-focus-on-dna/691138/33 "2014-06-19T18:05:59Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > I’m pretty sure that Fuhrman took the fifth on all questions put to him. I read his book, and IIRC, he said that was what happened. And maybe the judge did strike his testimony. I didn’t watch the whole trial, but I had a bad sinus infection one week, and only basic cable, and it happened to be the week all the Fuhrman fury was going on. > > But even if you didn’t watch the trial, you couldn’t help hearing about it everywhere if you were an adult in the US at the time. He may very well have taken the Fifth on all questions put to him. For all we know, all the answers might have tended to incriminate him (or the defense may not have cared). I’m just saying it’s not true that you either testify fully or not at all. > [@md2000](#): > > So the fifth does not mean that he planted evidence. he could have. He also might not have. Just as in court, refusing to answer cannot be assumed to be a “yes”. That’s not quite right. Since Fuhrman wasn’t on trial, the jury was entitled to infer that he _did_ plant evidence. The Fifth Amendment protects a non-defendant only from _subsequent_ criminal prosecution. ---
**Author:** ![Fishtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ed655f/32.png) [@Fishtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fishtar)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-oj-simpson-murder-trial-prosecution-focus-on-dna/691138/34 "2014-06-19T18:07:29Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > From the article: > > So the fifth does not mean that he planted evidence. he could have. He also might not have. Just as in court, refusing to answer cannot be assumed to be a “yes”. > > The trial simply showed that the sloppy and lax and possibly criminal methods used to build cases probably framed quite a few suspects who could not afford millions of dollars for good lawyers and investigators. True enough. But somebody planted some of the evidence, and his refusal to answer just highlighted this. The whole case was based on the assumption that LAPD had integrity. Once this assumption was proved false the case was over. Cannot blame black jurors, slimy defense attorneys, or incompetent prosecutors. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-oj-simpson-murder-trial-prosecution-focus-on-dna/691138/35 "2014-06-19T18:12:31Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > The OJ trial should have lasted no more than a week. The inept prosecution made the early choice to hammer down every single nail in the case, even though most cases choose a select list of points to prove. Agreed. Some prosecutors around here suffer from the same problem. Since they have the burden, they must craft a simple, short, and concise narrative to show that the Defendant did X beyond a reasonable doubt and that everything else is fluff. It’s the defense’s job to try to confuse this simple story with ancillary points to try to make the jury grab on to reasonable doubt. Less is more when it comes to prosecuting criminal cases. Don’t bore the jury or else you will lose them. A confused jury has reasonable doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Fishtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ed655f/32.png) [@Fishtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fishtar)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-oj-simpson-murder-trial-prosecution-focus-on-dna/691138/36 "2014-06-19T18:19:56Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Read the quote I cited. > As mentioned, EDTA is a common component of laundry detergent and of paint, and is also found in human blood naturally. It is therefore not significant that it should be detectable in blood taken from garments and painted surfaces. No, it actually doesn’t, unless you are able to explain how blood evidence can be planted before it is collected. As well as how to account for Nicole and Goldman’s (and OJ’s) blood being in OJ’s car. As well as how to account for the fact that OJ makes no mention of being framed in the note he wrote before the Bronco chase. As well as for the fact that OJ lied about owning Bruno Magli shoes. Etc. > > Regards, > Shodan Some of your facts are incorrect; “the three blood stains on the rear gate were not collected until July 3, 1994” Also, for EDTA, true enough some is found in natural human blood and detergent. But the blood on the gate contained VERY high levels. Levels that correspond exactly to what is found in a lavender top test tube… All the other evidence you cite is true enough. I am not arguing the OJ innocence. Only against the notion the jury was stupid. [http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~jweiss/laws131/unit3/simpson.htm](http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~jweiss/laws131/unit3/simpson.htm) ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-oj-simpson-murder-trial-prosecution-focus-on-dna/691138/37 "2014-06-19T18:22:58Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Agreed. Some prosecutors around here suffer from the same problem. Since they have the burden, they must craft a simple, short, and concise narrative to show that the Defendant did X beyond a reasonable doubt and that everything else is fluff. It’s the defense’s job to try to confuse this simple story with ancillary points to try to make the jury grab on to reasonable doubt. > > Less is more when it comes to prosecuting criminal cases. Don’t bore the jury or else you will lose them. A confused jury has reasonable doubt. To what extent can a prosecutor introduce evidence to refute a defence claim, if the evidence is not presented during the first phase? This is how I understand the obsession (IANAL) to spend weeks introducing every picky detail of the prosecution’s case. They want to be sure every possible point is on the record. I’m always amazed to read about some European court cases - for example, one article I read mentioned a major French murder trial that was expected to last a week at most. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-oj-simpson-murder-trial-prosecution-focus-on-dna/691138/38 "2014-06-19T22:14:04Z")
Ultimately, did the sequestration of the jury help either side? I can’t imagine it: 10 months in a hotel with strangers, no access to the news. Its like being in prison. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-oj-simpson-murder-trial-prosecution-focus-on-dna/691138/39 "2014-06-19T23:59:46Z")
Since the prosecution probably requested it, and the judge granted it, and the jury tends to think of the judge and the prosecutor as being on one side, since they are both on the city payroll (even when the defense has a public defender), it probably worked against the prosecution. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-oj-simpson-murder-trial-prosecution-focus-on-dna/691138/40 "2014-06-20T02:57:09Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > The OJ trial should have lasted no more than a week. The inept prosecution made the early choice to hammer down every single nail in the case, even though most cases choose a select list of points to prove. Towards the end of the trial, there was increasingly more and more talk in the public media that “the trial itself was on trial” – meaning to suggest that the jury might come to see the trial itself as a circus unfit to judge a real case, and acquit just for that. I think that may well have been exactly right. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-oj-simpson-murder-trial-prosecution-focus-on-dna/691138.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-oj-simpson-murder-trial-prosecution-focus-on-dna/691138.md?page=3)